So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

FilmFestGuy said:
For president, yes. But Repubclians run everything in the state and have for some time.

Florida suffered more due to the U.S. economy and the hit that retirement accounts took thanks to the current economic policy. The tourist industry feeds Florida and thanks to current economic policy the state suffered and kicked out the Democrats and the RINO

FilmFestGuy · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Florida suffered more due to the U.S. economy and the hit that retirement accounts took thanks to the current economic policy. The tourist industry feeds Florida and thanks to current economic policy the state suffered and kicked out the Democrats and the RINO

It suffered due to the recession which happened due to the policies of the first half of the decade which is while Republicans were in control. Thus, Floridians are masochists.

It's why your very Republican state is the fifth poorest state in the Union and my very Republican state is the 10th poorest state. It's why 8 of the 10 poorest states are very Republican states (and the other two are New Mexico and West Virginia, which I consider swing states). Poor social conservatives believe that Repubicans help them, when in reality Republican policies keep poor people poor and enrich those who already have money. They don't create jobs (which would raise all people's situations). There hasn't been a period of massive job growth since before Bush took office. When Bush took office (and I start with February numbers), the unemployment rate was 4.2%. It has never returned to that number since then. Never. After the first Bush recession, the closest he could back to was 4.4% and that was right before the floor fell out of the economy and in the course of 15 months it would rise all the way to 8.2% - nearly doubling.

It has gone up under Obama, yes. But it didn't double. Under Reagan, unemployment went up from 6.7% to 10.7% at this point in his history.

This is about an impatient electorate and nothing more. Remember this: it was independents who gave you this election. It was only two years ago they went the opposite direction. If the numbers don't greatly improve in the next two years, they're very unlikely to maintain their love affair with Republicans.

According to exit polls, only 32% said they were voting against Obama.

I have a strong feeling that Republicans are going to misread their mandate - just as Democrats did.

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

FilmFestGuy;1059079434]It suffered due to the recession which happened due to the policies of the first half of the decade which is while Republicans were in control. Thus, Floridians are masochists.

Interesting that bea.gov shows economic growth from 9.9 trillion dollars to 14.5 trillion dollars. Only in the liberal world is that a failure.

It's why your very Republican state is the fifth poorest state in the Union and my very Republican state is the 10th poorest state. It's why 8 of the 10 poorest states are very Republican states (and the other two are New Mexico and West Virginia, which I consider swing states). Poor social conservatives believe that Repubicans help them, when in reality Republican policies keep poor people poor and enrich those who already have money. They don't create jobs (which would raise all people's situations). There hasn't been a period of massive job growth since before Bush took office. When Bush took office (and I start with February numbers), the unemployment rate was 4.2%. It has never returned to that number since then. Never. After the first Bush recession, the closest he could back to was 4.4% and that was right before the floor fell out of the economy and in the course of 15 months it would rise all the way to 8.2% - nearly doubling.

Texans get it, it isn't the Federal Government's role to create wealth and to determine winners and losers. In TX that is done by the individual. There is a reason that TX is ranked so low in whatever poll you are using. You choose to ignore the reasons. TX has or is close to having the fastest growing population in the nation and thanks to the Federal Govt. one of the biggest immigration problems in the country. Both affect your so called rankings of state wealth.

I moved to TX in 1992 and it was the best move of my life. Quality of life and cost of living here is the best in the country. I will take that over any rankings that you post.

It has gone up under Obama, yes. But it didn't double. Under Reagan, unemployment went up from 6.7% to 10.7% at this point in his history.

The only comparison between Reagan and Obama are the results at this point in time. The economic policies are the exact opposite and it is the economic policies that will determine the future of this country. Last night the people said they didn't like the direction Obama was taking us. Let's see if Obama listened to the message and changes course to implement a Reagan style economic plan.

This is about an impatient electorate and nothing more. Remember this: it was independents who gave you this election. It was only two years ago they went the opposite direction. If the numbers don't greatly improve in the next two years, they're very unlikely to maintain their love affair with Republicans.

It was an historic night last night by all standards as the American people said, Pelosi, "YOU'RE FIRED!" Let's see how Obama responds. There is no doubt we are going to have a clear choice in 2012 as the Republican House is going to pass pro growth anti spending legislation. Let's see how Obama responds.

According to exit polls, only 32% said they were voting against Obama.

The exit polls also showed that the Govt. was headed in the wrong direction and the govt is headed by Obama.

I have a strong feeling that Republicans are going to misread their mandate - just as Democrats did.

Maybe, but it is obvious that Obama misread the results of 2008 as the American people last night rejected his agenda. He thought he had a mandate to pass healthcare, company takeovers, stimulus to bailout Democrat constituent groups, and cap and trade. he was wrong. We shall see how the Republicans do. My bet is they will do what they said they would do, cut spending and defund Obamacare.

FilmFestGuy · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Interesting that bea.gov shows economic growth from 9.9 trillion dollars to 14.5 trillion dollars. Only in the liberal world is that a failure.

Texans get it, it isn't the Federal Government's role to create wealth and to determine winners and losers. In TX that is done by the individual. There is a reason that TX is ranked so low in whatever poll you are using. You choose to ignore the reasons. TX has or is close to having the fastest growing population in the nation and thanks to the Federal Govt. one of the biggest immigration problems in the country. Both affect your so called rankings of state wealth.

I moved to TX in 1992 and it was the best move of my life. Quality of life and cost of living here is the best in the country. I will take that over any rankings that you post.

The only comparison between Reagan and Obama are the results at this point in time. The economic policies are the exact opposite and it is the economic policies that will determine the future of this country. Last night the people said they didn't like the direction Obama was taking us. Let's see if Obama listened to the message and changes course to implement a Reagan style economic plan.

It was an historic night last night by all standards as the American people said, Pelosi, "YOU'RE FIRED!" Let's see how Obama responds. There is no doubt we are going to have a clear choice in 2012 as the Republican House is going to pass pro growth anti spending legislation. Let's see how Obama responds.

The exit polls also showed that the Govt. was headed in the wrong direction and the govt is headed by Obama.

Maybe, but it is obvious that Obama misread the results of 2008 as the American people last night rejected his agenda. He thought he had a mandate to pass healthcare, company takeovers, stimulus to bailout Democrat constituent groups, and cap and trade. he was wrong. We shall see how the Republicans do. My bet is they will do what they said they would do, cut spending and defund Obamacare.

They won't do ****. That's my prediction. They didn't do **** for six years, why would they now?

Under Republicans - deficits rose. Middle Class income stagnated. Immigration reform didn't happen. Social Security reform didn't happen. Medicare became MORE expensive thanks to the gifts given to big pharma in the Part D plan. Two wars were started with no funding. John Boehner - who is going to be your leader now - stood ON THE HOUSE FLOOR and handed out checks from lobbyist to his fellow Republicans.

This is how your people do business. Mine might suck and I readily admit that. But Republicans are there to do the business of those who paid them - lobbyists. Boehner is so not ashamed to admit that he does the bidding of those who give him checks, he passes out checks on the floor of the House in front of everyone. And you're sending him in to lead Congress.

What's going to happen over the next two years is absolutely nothing. They will not cut the deficit in any way that it wasn't going to be cut anyway. Indeed, they've already pledge to grow the deficit by $4 TRILLION over the next four years, so I have no confidence that anything positive will happen.

Indeed, I fear for my job now more than ever. I see bad things coming UNLESS Republicans surprise me and begin to form a government that will actually work together with their philosophical opponents to craft legislation in a cooperative fashion. I have no confidence that they will. They have already said they are only there to score political points and not to govern. Otherwise they wouldn't state that their primary concern was to oust the President.

I just don't see how you can have confidence in a party that created deficits that only pale in comparison to the deficits this President HAD to spend to save the nation from economic collapse. You don't start TWO WARS without funding them. That's what these people did. And they'll do it again, but they'll lie and tell you they're saving money. That's what Republicans do. There hasn't been a Republican in my lifetime who has cut deficits. It has not happened. Not once. Never. Why should I suddenly believe them now?

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

FilmFestGuy said:
They won't do ****. That's my prediction. They didn't do **** for six years, why would they now?

Under Republicans - deficits rose. Middle Class income stagnated. Immigration reform didn't happen. Social Security reform didn't happen. Medicare became MORE expensive thanks to the gifts given to big pharma in the Part D plan. Two wars were started with no funding. John Boehner - who is going to be your leader now - stood ON THE HOUSE FLOOR and handed out checks from lobbyist to his fellow Republicans.

This is how your people do business. Mine might suck and I readily admit that. But Republicans are there to do the business of those who paid them - lobbyists. Boehner is so not ashamed to admit that he does the bidding of those who give him checks, he passes out checks on the floor of the House in front of everyone. And you're sending him in to lead Congress.

What's going to happen over the next two years is absolutely nothing. They will not cut the deficit in any way that it wasn't going to be cut anyway. Indeed, they've already pledge to grow the deficit by $4 TRILLION over the next four years, so I have no confidence that anything positive will happen.

Indeed, I fear for my job now more than ever. I see bad things coming UNLESS Republicans surprise me and begin to form a government that will actually work together with their philosophical opponents to craft legislation in a cooperative fashion. I have no confidence that they will. They have already said they are only there to score political points and not to govern. Otherwise they wouldn't state that their primary concern was to oust the President.

I just don't see how you can have confidence in a party that created deficits that only pale in comparison to the deficits this President HAD to spend to save the nation from economic collapse. You don't start TWO WARS without funding them. That's what these people did. And they'll do it again, but they'll lie and tell you they're saving money. That's what Republicans do. There hasn't been a Republican in my lifetime who has cut deficits. It has not happened. Not once. Never. Why should I suddenly believe them now?

Yes, under Republicans deficits rose but liberals have put those deficits on steroids. Why do you continue to live in the past and ignore what is going on now? You keep buying that we were headed for economic collapse so can you tell me any Obama economic prediction that has been accurate? Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts.

Yesterday was historic, the Obama agenda was rejected and looking deep into the votes it was worse for Obama than most actually realize. Even though the Democrats regained control of the Senate there are a lot of Senators up for re-election in 2012 that are now looking over their shoulders.

I really am sorry for your loss, LOL, not really but had to post something positive.

randel · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Yes, under Republicans deficits rose but liberals have put those deficits on steroids. Why do you continue to live in the past and ignore what is going on now? You keep buying that we were headed for economic collapse so can you tell me any Obama economic prediction that has been accurate? Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts.

Yesterday was historic, the Obama agenda was rejected and looking deep into the votes it was worse for Obama than most actually realize. Even though the Democrats regained control of the Senate there are a lot of Senators up for re-election in 2012 that are now looking over their shoulders.

I really am sorry for your loss, LOL, not really but had to post something positive.

so in essence...if repubs do it, its good..if dems do it its bad...

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

randel said:
so in essence...if repubs do it, its good..if dems do it its bad...

Keep trolling, when Republicans do it it is front page news on the liberal blogs, when Democrats do it, it is ignored. obama has added 3 trillion to the debt in 2 years. Keep ignoring that reality.

randel · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Keep trolling, when Republicans do it it is front page news on the liberal blogs, when Democrats do it, it is ignored. obama has added 3 trillion to the debt in 2 years. Keep ignoring that reality.

trolling my ass, be honest with yourself, you have preached this for months on end...if repubs run a deficit, increase the debt, its ok...if dems do it, its bad. be honest.

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

randel said:
trolling my ass, be honest with yourself, you have preached this for months on end...if repubs run a deficit, increase the debt, its ok...if dems do it, its bad. be honest.

That is trolling and that is all you do. Never have I said that deficits were good and I challenge you to prove it. Keep ignoring this reality, Obama added 3 trillion to the debt in two years, the largest expansion of debt in U.S. History

randel · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
That is trolling and that is all you do. Never have I said that deficits were good and I challenge you to prove it. Keep ignoring this reality, Obama added 3 trillion to the debt in two years, the largest expansion of debt in U.S. History

you are ok with it as long as its the repubs doing it...you dismiss it as not important when your party of choice is the one doing it, it suddenly becomes a big deal for you when democrats do it...again, please be honest.

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

randel said:
you are ok with it as long as its the repubs doing it...you dismiss it as not important when your party of choice is the one doing it, it suddenly becomes a big deal for you when democrats do it...again, please be honest.

I challenged you to prove that statement and this is what you do, same old rhetoric that ignores what I posted. Obama has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years!! That would be 3 TRILLION!!

randel · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
I challenged you to prove that statement and this is what you do, same old rhetoric that ignores what I posted. Obama has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years!! That would be 3 TRILLION!!

you want proof? look through your posts over the last several months....it is not a big deal with you if republicans are doing it...when dems do it , according to you, they have 'put it on steroids'...

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

randel said:
you want proof? look through your posts over the last several months....it is not a big deal with you if republicans are doing it...when dems do it , according to you, they have 'put it on steroids'...

Then you shouldn't have any problem finding one where I supported deficits. You made the statement now prove it. Until then remember Obama added 3 TRILLION in 2 years!

pbrauer · Nov 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem finding one where I supported deficits. You made the statement now prove it. Until then remember Obama added 3 TRILLION in 2 years!

That total bull****, Bush last budget had a deficit of $1.416 TRILLION. And most of the deficits today are because the lost of income tax revenue because of the great recession created by Bush.

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

pbrauer said:
That total bull****, Bush last budget had a deficit of $1.416 TRILLION. And most of the deficits today are because the lost of income tax revenue because of the great recession created by Bush.

Guess the U.S. Treasury got it wrong, why don't you write them and tell them that their deficit numbers were wrong. Seems to me you continue to be someone that remains in total denial. Facts always get in the way of your personal opinions which are always anti Republican. what did the Republicans ever do to warrant this hatred based upon absolute ignorance?

By the way, there was no 1.4 trillion deficit in the 2009 budget as TARP, GM/Chrysler, Stimulus, and other Obama initiatives were supplementals not part of the budget. Further Obama refused to apply repayment of TARP to the deficit. Keep spinning

pbrauer · Nov 3, 2010

AFP: US deficit shrinks nearly nine percent in fiscal 2010

(AFP) – Oct 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — The US budget deficit shrank by nearly nine percent in the last fiscal year, according to government figures published Friday, as spending decreased and revenues rose.

The figures "underscored the administration's commitment" to cutting the massive government deficit, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a statement.

For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget deficit of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 8.6 percent from a record-setting 1.416 trillion dollars in the previous year.

In terms of the deficit's ratio to economic output, the 2010 budget gap was 8.9 percent of gross domestic product, down from 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009.

Conservative · Nov 3, 2010

pbrauer said:
AFP: US deficit shrinks nearly nine percent in fiscal 2010

(AFP) – Oct 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — The US budget deficit shrank by nearly nine percent in the last fiscal year, according to government figures published Friday, as spending decreased and revenues rose.

The figures "underscored the administration's commitment" to cutting the massive government deficit, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a statement.

For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget deficit of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 8.6 percent from a record-setting 1.416 trillion dollars in the previous year.

In terms of the deficit's ratio to economic output, the 2010 budget gap was 8.9 percent of gross domestic product, down from 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009.

Isn't that wonderful it shrunk all the way down to the second highest deficit in U.S. History both under Obama. By the way think any of that TARP repayment got into that reduction? Hmmm. Why wasn't TARP used to pay down the debt in the year that TARP was spent? Keep digging for some good news although I doubt that a 1.29 trillion deficit is good news to anyone but a true Obama supporter who points out the reduction but not a reduction to what and where that reduction came from.

pbrauer · Nov 4, 2010

According to the link at the OP the total income from taxpayers 2000-2008 $8,219,818 but the total income taxes for the previous 8 years was $9,807,642 for a difference of ($1,587,824). And there was 13,077,069 less taxpayers in 2008 than in 2000. Pretty devistating I would say.

Conservative · Nov 4, 2010

pbrauer said:
According to the link at the OP the total income from taxpayers 2000-2008 $8,219,818 but the total income taxes for the previous 8 years was $9,807,642 for a difference of ($1,587,824). And there was 13,077,069 less taxpayers in 2008 than in 2000. Pretty devistating I would say.

I have posted the actual revenue growth from 2000-2008 which apparently you cherrypicked to promote whatever your agenda is. 2008 was a disaster as was 2000-2001 as Bush inherited a recession. Why do you have so much passion for higher taxes and how can you defend the govt. taking more money from the taxpayer?

pbrauer · Nov 4, 2010

Conservative said:
I have posted the actual revenue growth from 2000-2008 which apparently you cherrypicked to promote whatever your agenda is. 2008 was a disaster as was 2000-2001 as Bush inherited a recession. Why do you have so much passion for higher taxes and how can you defend the govt. taking more money from the taxpayer?

Bush did not inherit a recession, that didn't occur until after Bush became president.

(Why don't you donate some $ money to DP, they need your help.)

Conservative · Nov 4, 2010

pbrauer said:
Bush did not inherit a recession, that didn't occur until after Bush became president.

(Why don't you donate some $ money to DP, they need your help.)

Then tell me what economic policy Bush had in place March 1, 2001?

washingtonpost.com
Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM

UtahBill · Nov 4, 2010

Conservative said:
I have posted the actual revenue growth from 2000-2008 which apparently you cherrypicked to promote whatever your agenda is. 2008 was a disaster as was 2000-2001 as Bush inherited a recession. Why do you have so much passion for higher taxes and how can you defend the govt. taking more money from the taxpayer?

Where else will the govt get the money?
Answering my own question, there are a lot of govt owned lands that we could sell.
Any other ideas? don't say spend less, that is obvious and won't solve the current debt issue...

Conservative · Nov 4, 2010

UtahBill said:
Where else will the govt get the money?
Answering my own question, there are a lot of govt owned lands that we could sell.
Any other ideas? don't say spend less, that is obvious and won't solve the current debt issue...

The only way to pay down the debt is to cut spending and then grow your way out of it. Putting 16 million unemployed Americans will help a lot. You cannot raise taxes enough to impact the debt but any raising of taxes will do more harm keeping the unemployed off the tax roles.

UtahBill · Nov 4, 2010

Conservative said:
The only way to pay down the debt is to cut spending and then grow your way out of it. Putting 16 million unemployed Americans will help a lot. You cannot raise taxes enough to impact the debt but any raising of taxes will do more harm keeping the unemployed off the tax roles.

If only we had 16 million jobs to give the unemployed...
assuming we did, who would be hiring? and would the wages be enough to live on, and more importantly, enough to tax.

Conservative · Nov 4, 2010

UtahBill said:
If only we had 16 million jobs to give the unemployed...
assuming we did, who would be hiring? and would the wages be enough to live on, and more importantly, enough to tax.

Who are we? With the right incentive the private sector will create the jobs. those 16 million people were working somewhere before they became unemployed.